User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:25:07 PM EDT
[#1]
The legislation is sponser by Congressman Wrangle of NY. He sure as hell DOES know how the military works, he just doesn't care. He won't let anything get in the way of "making a point" by forcing "the rich white kids to fight." To jog yer memories, he was the ass-toot fellow who made the BOGUS claim that their are more African Americans fighting than whites. He was destroyed with fact in VERY short order. I love how the Democrates inject race into EVERYTHING....as if the Marine being fed ammo is going to check the color of his brother Marine. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:27:28 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:30:41 PM EDT
[#3]
And out of 2.4 Million you somehow think that 6000 is a major drain? Its a additional 0.25% You ARE aware that that cealing is also artificial? If we wanted more men we would just PAY for more (and the 05 budget does add about 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 marines). We have been avoiding that because hiring a new soldier means we also have to pay is salary and also BENEFITS for the rest of his life which is very very expensive. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:33:06 PM EDT
[#4]
No draftees can and have fought just as well as regulars. However, America's permissive society would have a hard time accepting the measures used during the past. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:34:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Are you going to get drafted???
Excerpts from the above article: First and foremost, one must understand that the President does not have the authority to re-institute the draft. In order for a draft to be implemented, Congress would have to pass a specific law to authorize it. What's that? You, in the back row. Could you repeat the question, please? Oh. The email you read stated that Congress is already considering two such bills, and that the Bush administration is quietly pushing them through? You're speaking of Senate Bill 89, introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), and House Resolution 163, introduced by Representative Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). Both bills would require two years of military service (or community service for those who are medically unqualified) for every male and female in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26. These are the only two "draft" legislation bills which are currently active. First and foremost, please note that both bills were authored and introduced by Democrats, not Republicans. Senator Hollings and Mr. Rangel introduced the legislation over a year ago (January 2003), as a means of protest against a potential invasion of Iraq. Congress immediately stuck them "in committee" to die (that's what Congress does with bills that have absolutely no chance of passing). The two bills have languished there, ever since, with absolutely no action being taken. Both bills would require every single male and female between the ages of 18 and 26 to serve two years in the military (or community service). Hollings version has just 13 co-sponsors, and Rangel's bill has no support at all. Folks, these bills have ZERO chances of passing. More about this idiocy, later. *********************************** Crunching the Numbers. Back to the two pieces of legislation I mention at the beginning of this article: Remember, both bills would require military service (or community service for those who don't medically qualify for military service) for everyone between the ages of 20 and 26. According to the Selective Service, there are currently 11 million men eligible for the draft in that age-range. However, both bills apply to women as well, so about 22 million would be required to serve. Keep in mind that these bills do not just require a portion of them to be drafted, they require everyone to serve. With all due respect to the good senator and representative, they're full of it, and they know it. There is absolutely no way this country could afford a military with 22 million people serving. Rangel and Hollings introduced the legislation to make a political point (they are against the war in Iraq), not because they think the bills have any chance of passing. They can't pass, and the congressmen know it. Let's do some simple arithmetic: For the sake of simpler mathematics, we'll assume that all 22 million "draftees" are serving in the grade of E-1 (the lowest enlisted grade). They won't be, of course, but it makes the math easier. An E-1 in today's military starts off with a base pay of $1193.40 per month. $1193.40 multiplied by 22 million comes to $26,254,800,000. That's a payroll of 26 BILLION dollars per month, just in the basic pay. Multiply that by 12, and it's a yearly payroll of $315,057,600,000 (315 BILLION dollars!). Good read about the BS that's out there.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:34:41 PM EDT
[#6]
Keep voting Liberal pieces of shit into public office and you may have your draft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:37:01 PM EDT
[#7]
and they'd blame the Rebuplicans for it to boot!!!!!!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:37:04 PM EDT
[#8]
It's going to get even better when a couple of mech divisions come back from Germany and go in to the Iraq rotation. When they get them back and reoriented the way the Army needs to be now we will be able to stop using guard/reserve units so much.
The way they are rotating units instead of soldiers is outstanding, as compaired to Vietnam. The esprit is great from everything I have heard (that wasn't someone out to bash Bush). And Odball, 1000 soldiers isn't that much, very sad but all in all it was a bad two weeks in Vietnam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:38:57 PM EDT
[#9]
our military was MUCH larger until your boy clinton started to reduce the size. we were able to support the military then without a draft so it is illogical to presume we would have a problem now...
stop spreading your democratic propoganda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:39:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Selective Service exists for one thing only. To replace quickly (and actually THAT is debateabe) the sudden loss of a couple to several tens of thousands of US troops killed or injured by nuclear weapons overseas, either from North Korea or by some other country suddenly launching a attack on a area where we have large concentrations of troops stationed.
Its to quickly re-fill the Army to finish that war. It will never again be used otherwise, for one thing, as shown above, we cannot afford to pay that many troops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:42:48 PM EDT
[#11]
And even your own picked numbers betray your ignorance of what 'real' casualty rates are. Each death is important and tragic, but the casualty rates in IRaq are NOWHERE near what they've been in past wars. WW1 & WW2 had KIA/WIA rates of some 1 in every 15 that served in the theatres. Korea was something like 1 in 40. Vietnam was back to 1 in 15. GW1 blew any modern child's / dilettante's understanding, with an astonishing rate of only 1 in 1500 These stats can be substantiated with just s short search of the available data. And now in Iraq, we cycled something approaching 600,000, 700,000? individuals through the theatre, with 11,000 KIA/WIA, 1 in 54 AT LEAST. Almost certainly a lower rate - 1 in 60 or 70. Again, your posts about casualties betray a near-total lack of knowledge of military history. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:46:02 PM EDT
[#12]
Most of those were from the Army Air Corp, their losses were incredible. I think the Army should have a 2 -4 more Divisions, this would really help with the OPTEMPO and help ease the burden on the Guard and Reserve. Given the current situation, have most of the new Divisions be Strkyer/Light Fighters who can deploy quickly. It would be real nice if really need to put the squeeze to a place like Fallujah to have all those extra boots on the ground. Gives the Commander the ability to rotate his tired units with rested troops, meanwhile the Hadji's get no rest. The Guard and Reserve should pull like 4 to 6 month rotations much like the Air Force does with its Reserve and Guard units under an AEF. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:47:01 PM EDT
[#13]
Yes, in fact, I do. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:48:08 PM EDT
[#14]
When waves of new posters spread this lie around the internet, at this site, or even when long-timers like yourself SPREAD this shit without the full contextual information and the associated facts and truth, they are acting or contributing to attempts to unseat our current President. I will not "lighten up" about such a thing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:50:38 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:50:38 PM EDT
[#16]
Anyone know what the body count is for the bad guys?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:51:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Plus whatever SGatr15 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:55:40 PM EDT
[#18]
Btw, 1000's upon 1000's of kids turn 18 every day...making them available to join the service.
Sgatr15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:56:19 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 4:59:44 PM EDT
[#20]
The military would much rather increase pay incentives than draft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:00:05 PM EDT
[#21]
My understanding is that Guard and Reserve units aren't meeting their recruitment numbers, by a signfigant amount. The retention rate is anywhere from bad to slightly less than usual depending on the unit.
Recruitment is not having problems finding "new recruits". But prior service soldiers are not joining the Guard/Reserves allegedly because fewer prior soldiers are being released from active duty due to "stop loss" orders. 1,000 deaths in 18 month is regretable. In that same time 70,000 people dies on the nations highways, 24,000 were vicitms of homicide. Does that help put it onto perspective. I think the Army is too small. I would like to see the 82nd and 101st become "Airborne" again. Another "heavy" Division should be added Along with 2 "light" Divisions, perhaps one airmobile, and one infantry. The Army should look at getting more support/logistics troops, truck drivers, cooks, engineers, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:04:46 PM EDT
[#22]
The active Army has achieved 98 percent of its year-to-date mission, the Army Reserve has achieved 96 percent of its YTD mission. The National Guard has retained almost 130 percent of its YTD mission.
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/05/mil-040526-usa02.htm My unit is ahead of its rates on retention, and the guys who have been deployed are reenlisting at a higher rate than those who have not! For a while now stop loss has only affected reserve and guard units from time of alert till 90 days past demobilzation, so stop loss doesn't affect these numbers much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:24:55 PM EDT
[#23]
I would like to see a 50 division military.
20 Regular and 24 National Guard in the Army with 2 Airborne each in the Regualrs (82nd and 101st) and National Guard (11th and 17th) plus 3 Armored, 6 Mechanized, and 9 Light including 1 Mountain and 1 Alpine. National Guard would have 22 Divisions, 8 Mechanized, 14 Light Infantry plus the 2 Airborne. 4 Active and 2 Reserve in the USMC (36 Regiments, 18 infantry, 6 each artillery, engineers and armor(armor regiments to combine LAV/Amtrack/MBT with 1 BN each) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:59:04 PM EDT
[#24]
oh really, care to "show your work," pards? sounds to me like you simply made a statement without checking. heres mine: - in wwII 657,318 (total dead and mamed) divided by 16,353,659 that served in theaters. 657,318 divided by 16,353,659 = 4.01% - in vietnam 3,500,000 served in theater from 1960 - 1973 in total there were about 47,000 dead and 75,000 permanently mamed for a total of 122,000 122,000 divided by the 3,500,000 = 3.48% - in iraq there 6000 dead and mamed with 150,000 in theater 6000 divided by 150,000 = 3.33% so there is a statistical dead heat with vietnam, and wwII was only slightly higher at .68 more per 100 troops. so, while it looks like you are "officially" correct, vietnam and iraq are in a statistical dead-heat (equal for those that dont understand), and wwII is only slightly higher (very slightly). also, wwII and vietnam were both staffed in large numbers by draftees. so you are incorrect in your assesment of needed troop strength. i suggest that you and your kind do your research BEFORE you type. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 5:59:56 PM EDT
[#25]
Not long enough.
It wouldn't take much to stretch US forces to their breaking point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:02:32 PM EDT
[#26]
We are currently in OIF 2.2, each increment has seen around 150,000 troops, so in reality there has been something like 450,000 in the AO |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:12:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Oddballs website is written by a guy named Pat Kneisler. He is also a member of these guys:
www.solanopeaceandjustice.com Another bunch of left wing loonies. Example of some of their rants: Walnut Creek Peace Vigil: When: Every Friday Time: 5:00 to 6:00 P.M. Where: Southeast corner of Ygnacio and California The Peace Vigil is sponsored by the Mount Diablo Peace Center (http://www.mtdpc.org/calendar.php) and is therefore non-partisan. We have plenty of signs, posters and banners. You are encouraged to bring your own signs. Please follow a few simple rules regarding sign messages: no partisan politics (ie anti-Bush or pro-anybody); no profanity; nothing confrontational. A sample of signs we already have include: Jobs Not War; Iraq, Another Vietnam?; Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home; Support War? Join the Army!; Would You Send YOUR Child; No Military Draft; As of Today XXX U.S. Soldiers Died in Iraq; Peace Is Possible; Protect Public Education; Isn't the internet wonderful RJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:22:49 PM EDT
[#28]
The French lost 200,000 men during the first month of WWI back in 1914. They sustained that one a while longer...
Dennis Jenkins
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:41:32 PM EDT
[#29]
nimrod; your ratio of casualties to troops in theatre bears no relationship to our ability to enlist troops with or without a draft. you are ASSUMING your conclusion without providing ANY evidence to support a correlation. historically we HAVE supported a volunteer army much larger then todays military. there is NO evidence to suppose we would have any problem returning the miltary to pre-clinton levels without a draft. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:49:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Rumsfeld's stated plans since the very beginning of his taking office has been just that. Your further comments on more logisitics troops are also unnecessary bloat - why the hell should we be paying for broom-pushers in military uniform? The goal is to INcrease the ratio of trigger-pullers to cooks. General service / housekeeping jobs are being REMOVED from the military, handed to contractors. Person for person it costs more cash, but LONG-term in pensions, retirements etc, it is FAR cheaper - and allows you to have more triggermen for the SAME total number in Force size. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:55:00 PM EDT
[#31]
We also didn't have enough trucks in April 2003 to keep up tempo. And we didn't have enough security for them due to the retraction from the "Square" to triangular battalions deprived the BN combat teams of their rear security element, and there were not enough MPs to guard the division and above train elements as they moved through the area. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:56:51 PM EDT
[#32]
There have been several (famous) people who have a expressed desire to volunteer to serve in Iraq and have been turned down for various reasons. I'm sure there are others, in fact I have heard folks here on ARFCOM say they would go. I would volunteer to serve in Iraq IF I could serve ONLY in IRAQ and get out after Iraq was over.
I think if we get to a point where it becomes necessary to boost troop numbers we MAY have to adjust the parameters by which we accept and or reject volunteers. If we continue steadfast on our current course I see no reason to think we will not be utterly successful in Iraq AND in the "war on terror" overall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:58:45 PM EDT
[#33]
it would take wwIII before we had another draft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 6:59:18 PM EDT
[#34]
Oddball:
Nothing is statistically significant to any less than 5 decimal points so your fact is in fact debunked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 7:03:05 PM EDT
[#35]
I'll take the 11th Airborne Division in Arizona for $1000, Alex. Man, I'd be waiting at the National Guard recruiting office at 0600 if Arizona got an airborne unit. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 7:04:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Since one of the reasons our military forces are in Iraq is to prep for an invasion of Iran, my guess is that there is a very strong chance that the draft will be re-instated around Spring 2005.
Hope I'm wrong, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 7:12:46 PM EDT
[#37]
I thought of it because we seem to be letting a lot of talent slipping away. I think guys who had been airborne would stay if they could continue doing it part time. But with only two divisions in the whole ANG the most any one state would get is one BN |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 7:35:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Someone estimated that based on current losses we could occupy Iraq for 400 years (it should only take 150 years to pump them dry).
GunLvr |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 7:56:04 PM EDT
[#39]
+200 what ever it takes, i am an old f*&K but it's really come down to you or me , i'd rather the other guy die for his belief. and send them to allah ... once again i said it before fu8k the islamic extremists and if the muslims cant poilce there own, so if this continues turn the freakin place to a parking lot , you are either with us or against us. i have no pity or sympathy for any muslim who will sympathize or support the jihadists. george it's time to push the fucking button. i am tired of this shit. first iran, then syria, then the whole of the middle east. they can either take care of their own or fu*king die.
and by the way kerry can keep sucking muslim dick! and any liberal mofo who reads this , how would you like youre freedom denied, because they think ALLLAH is its will. I AM PISSED SO BE IT IF I AM BANNED , I HAVE SPOKEN MY MIND AND PEACE. GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS, FUCK KERRY AND HIS ISLAMIC EXTREMIST FRIENDS meat |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 8:07:17 PM EDT
[#40]
First, your number in theater for Iraq does not reflect the number that have rotated through, but whats currently there, while your number for WWII reflects all who served overseas. Go back and crunch the numbers using the total number that have served in theater if you are going to compare it to the total number that served in theater in WWII over the whole conflict, otherwise your numbers show your obvious bias and the fact that you want to support the conclusion you have already come to. So punch 400,000 in and see what it comes out to, or adjust the numbers from other wars for only what was in theater at any one given time. But your methods now are both flawed and intellectually dishonest.... and remind me of the same methods the gun control advocates use to come up with thier flawed statistics. For someone that suggests "I and my kind do our research" you sure haven't done yours, or else have and have to fudge what numbers you use to meet the outcome you desire. BTW, what exactly is "my kind"? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 8:09:08 PM EDT
[#41]
We can hold Iraq, but NOT KOREA! when, yes i say when that flares up. Probably in the form of a mushroom cloud, there will be a massive draft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 8:15:00 PM EDT
[#42]
No not really. The North Korean governments primary concern is survival… they cannot survive a nuclear exchange. There is absolutely no danger of North Korea using a nuclear weapon. The danger from North Korea on the nuclear level is them supplying a nuclear weapon to a third party. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 8:25:07 PM EDT
[#43]
The Navy has lost 34 people during "combat" from Jan to right now as of this year.
To put it in perspective the Navy has lost 71 people due to private motor vehicle accidents during the same time frame. What's your point? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 8:39:27 PM EDT
[#44]
The answer follows...
The Army sets it recruiting goals based on its needs… The recruiting goals will take into account the need to replace combat loses… So as long as the Army meets it recruiting goals (which they have exceeded every quarter for the last many years) everything will be fine. The only foreseeable disaster is if Kerry is elected, which WILL cause a collapse in moral and a resulting disaster in personal retention… it will be kind of hard for the average solider to get behind a Commander and Chief that feels the war he is fighting and dying in is “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time”. So the right answer is if you want to guarantee a draft vote for Kerry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 8:52:05 PM EDT
[#45]
Noth Korea is not a threat, all you have to do is stop feeding them and they would starve into submission, they can't afford toliet paper to wipe their own collective ass
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 8:52:16 PM EDT
[#46]
As one of those recruitment statistics (If I pass the board this Sat), +Indefinate... There will be enough volunteers to replace the lost, wounded, & the unfortunate whiners who joined for a free (college) lunch & don't want to fight... And yes, if the recruiting gets tough, just increase pay & benefits... There are a whole lot of 'good' things that could be done if needed to make more people CHOOSE to join yp, before a draft would be needed... And as a bonus, the folks who join now KNOW that they WILL have to FIGHT, so we won't get any more of this 'Waaahhh, I joined the MARINES for the college money, I didn't know I'd get shot at'  |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2004 9:37:37 PM EDT
[#47]
Get rid of that Montgomery tuition assistence BS and bring back the GI Bill and you would have a stampede to the recruiting offices. You would get a year of college paid for every year of active service, just my 2 cents....It only benefits the country in the long run, quality people joining and then becoming productive citizens later, win, win....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 6:44:05 AM EDT
[#48]
Just looking at the Army, and not other force, the Army had an authorized strength of 486,502 in 2002. During the Cold War, the Army managed to maintain a strength of 780k for almost ten years straight with a smaller pool of people to recruit from (less women and fewer numbers of the prime 18-24 age males) without ever resorting to a draft.
Source: web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms9.pdf In other words, if Congress was willing to authorize the force increase tomorrow, we know the Army has a ten-year track record showing the ability to successfully recruit and maintain at least 294k more troops than they have right now using nothing but an all-volunteer Army. To add to that, they were able to do it in an environment where there were fewer women allowed in most MOS and where there were fewer 18-24yr old men to recruit to begin with. They could effectively replace every unit in Iraq twice before they would even reach a level where people would have to even think about whether a draft might be necessary. This is one of the reasons the people screaming "draft" sound so ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 7:13:00 AM EDT
[#49]
+1 We were undermanned when this war began. Burnout rate was pretty high. Our operational tempo was as high as it has been since WWII. People leaving active duty were not going back into the reserves. We are still undermanned for the worldwide committments we have made. Nonetheless, Congress has refused to increase manpower endstrength over the years and the Reserves have been filling the needed billets because they don't count against endstrength -- if they do less than 179-day tours (with an appropriate gap between tours). As a result, a lot of the Reserves were already on active duty. Most Reservists won't talk about it but they have been jerked around pretty bad. I'm afraid that soon there won't be much of a Reserve program so don't count on help from that quarter. I don't know if we can keep it up using current forces and rotations. I hear good arguments both ways from people who really know this stuff ... but my sense is that we are pretty much at our limit now. The good recruiting helps and is a good sign but they are recruiting to current billets -- current endstrength. We are not adding people, we are filling billets left by trained and experienced (and burned out) folks. It will take the newbies a couple of years to get to an acceptable level. Perhaps we can go this way for a long time, perhaps not, but if we get another serious flare-up somewhere else, I don't see how we can meet our commitments without a Congress stepping up to the plate and giving the Armed Forces the staffing they need. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2004 9:09:21 AM EDT
[#50]
He, we lost up to 7,000 just on ships alone in one DAY of Kamikaze attacks off Okinawa. Another DU troll stirring shit about which he knows nothing. oddball, you are arguing statistics, but the bottom line is there is no draft and the only draft legislation introduced has been by your Democrats. That is the bottom line, your ignorant blathering aside. |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
